Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Marlborough House, 12-13 December 2012
Commonwealth Recommendations for the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
BACKGROUND PAPER
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Printed and published by the Commonwealth Secretariat, December 2012
The Commonwealth Secretariat gratefully acknowledges the assistance provided by many individuals, especially the contributions of Professor Keith Lewin.
For more information please contact: Jonathan Penson Adviser (Education) [email protected]
Social Transformation Programmes Division Education Section Commonwealth Secretariat Marlborough House Pall Mall London SW1Y 5HX [email protected] www.thecommonwealth.org Contents
1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Background ...... 5
1.2 Outline of the paper ...... 5
2. The Commonwealth perspective ...... 7
3. The changed development context ...... 8
4. Strengths and weaknesses of the current framework ...... 11
4.1 Strengths of the IAGs ...... 11
4.2 Weaknesses of the IAGs ...... 12
5. The options ...... 17
6. The case for education in the new IAGs ...... 20
6.1 The unfinished business of education ...... 21
6.1.1 Progress against the MDGs for education in Commonwealth countries ...... 22
6.1.2 Progress against the EFA Goals in Commonwealth countries ...... 23
6.1.3 Global progress ...... 25
6.2 The catalytic role of education – its extrinsic value ...... 26
6.3 Education for its own sake – its intrinsic value ...... 29
7. Commonwealth focus ...... 30
7.1 Access ...... 30
7.2 Equity ...... 30
7.3 Quality ...... 33
7.3.1 Teacher development ...... 34
7.3.2 Education leadership and management ...... 34
7.3.3 Technology for teaching and learning ...... 35
8. The post-2015 development framework for education ...... 35
8.1 Principal goals ...... 36
8.2 Subordinate goals ...... 38
8.2.1 Early childhood education and development ...... 38 Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
8.2.2 Basic education ...... 39
8.2.3 Post-basic and post-secondary education ...... 40
8.2.4 Non-formal education and lifelong learning ...... 43
8.2.5 Participation...... 44
8.2.6 Infrastructure ...... 45
8.3 Cross-cutting themes ...... 46
8.3.1 Education in emergencies ...... 46
8.3.2 Migration...... 47
8.3.3 Gender ...... 47
8.3.4 Education for sustainable development ...... 48
9. Summary of goals, indicative indicators and targets ...... 50
References ...... 52
Appendix: Internationally Agreed Goals for Education ...... 59
A.1 Millennium Development Goals for Education ...... 59
A.2 Education for All Goals ...... 59 Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
1. Introduction 1.1 Background At the 18th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (18CCEM) in Mauritius in August 2012, Ministers established a Working Group to develop recommendations for the post-2015 development framework for education. The recommendations would reflect Commonwealth priorities for education and would be fed into the UN processes for replacing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for education and Education for All (EFA) goals (together, the Internationally Agreed Goals, or IAGs). The recommendations will be presented to the UN High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda and to UNESCO Education For All.
The Working Group’s draft recommendations for the structure and content of the post-2015 framework are informed by the discussions at 18CCEM, the Mauritius Communiqué, statements from the 18CCEM Parallel Forums (Post-Secondary and Higher Education Leaders, Stakeholders, Teachers and Youth) and background documents prepared for 18CCEM (Education in the Commonwealth, Menefee and Bray, 2012) and the 18CCEM Issues Paper and Synopsis (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012b). Draft recommendations were shared with Commonwealth ministers of education, together with Commonwealth civil society, strategic partners and other stakeholders. The Commonwealth Education Ministers recommendations to the architecture of the post-2015 framework and their priority areas for education are a result of this process.
The Background Paper explores these approaches and primary areas in order to provide a substantiated basis for further refining the recommendations for the architecture and for prioritising areas of education which Members of the Working Group identified should be addressed in the post-2015 framework.
1.2 Outline of the paper The paper is structured to provide information on the identified priorities, the structure and architecture of the post-2015 framework. It includes background information and critical analysis of what is relevant to the specific priorities and recommendations proposed. The structure is as follows:
Section 1 provides an introduction to the document and outlines the process undertaken to reach the final analysis and recommendations.
Section 2 provides a rationale for why the Commonwealth perspective is important. It focuses on the premise and significance of the Commonwealth in the light of its diversity, breadth, common
Page | 5
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
values, convening power and ability to represent smaller countries, and identifies the importance of having the interface of values and education reflected in the new framework.
Section 3 provides a brief overview of the changed development landscape to which the new framework should respond. It highlights changed perceptions of the role and responsibilities of governments, the private sector, and non-state actors, and changes in the perception of the role and purpose of education itself. This analysis identifies the importance of a multi-sectoral approach to development, while retaining focus on specific development outcomes.
Section 4 provides an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current development framework. It concludes that the framework represented a certain paradigm consensus on poverty reduction strategies, which fostered clear advocacy messages on certain key outcomes, and this enabled opportunity to leverage resources only around these outcomes. It also concludes that there are areas in the IAGs that sometimes overlap, lack clarity, exclude critical areas of development, do not sufficiently focus on equity, and do not reflect a satisfactory balance between the interests of developed and developing countries.
Section 5 reviews a range of options for addressing the new framework, and the potential implications of each of these options. This analysis concludes that some aspects of the current goals should be retained as the targets have not yet been – and will not be – reached. It further concludes that generally the goals should be refined to make them more focussed; goals should be expanded to include areas of current global importance, and the overall structure needs to be altered, to accommodate both post-EFA and post-MDGs in one framework for synergy.
Section 6 provides background information and evidence as to the importance of education remaining a priority of the development agenda. The section examines the case for continued attention to education, in the light of a perceived reduction in the emphasis on education in current development discourse. It is argued that education has both an extrinsic value, in its catalytic role in adding value to other development efforts, especially economic growth and democracy, and an intrinsic value, in that it is of value to humans for its own sake, as both a self/human development stimulant and tool to individuals and to society. It concludes that important goals in education in the current framework remain unfulfilled and that this work needs to be completed.
Page | 6
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Section 7 identifies and discusses the priority areas resulting from the consultation process with Commonwealth stakeholders. Recommendations are proposed for each priority, including goals, targets and indicators. These recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive but to form a framework for discussion taking into account the Commonwealth specific considerations leading to a final recommendation document.
Conclusion: the findings of the analysis indicate that the new development framework will need both to complete the work of the current IAGs, and to set bold and ambitious imperatives which respond to the experiences of the past, address a fast-changing global context, and prepare the world for the future. Reaching the hardest-to-reach citizens requires new strategies and new commitments. This paper recommends that education (be envisaged to) play a central, foundational role in guiding the vision and goals of the future development agenda, and that three key priorities of Access, Equity and Quality would create and enable a balance.
The appendix provides a summary of the key structural recommendations for the post-2015 framework for education in a matrix of the proposed goals for each priority area, including the relevant indicators and targets.
2. The Commonwealth perspective The Commonwealth is an association of 54 countries which is united by shared values and principles, and which works towards shared goals in democracy, development, and respect for diversity. It lists its shared values as peace and security, democracy, human rights, respect and understanding, rule of law, freedom of expression, development, gender equality, access to quality health and education, good governance and increased partnership with civil societies (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1991). The uniqueness of the Commonwealth is not only its shared values but also its diversity, as it consists of developed and developing countries, rich and poor, large and small. The Commonwealth is home to two billion citizens of all faiths and ethnicities, of which over half are 25 years old or under, and a quarter are under 5 (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012c).
The end of the MDG and EFA period in 2015 will mark a fundamental paradigm shift in the global development framework. The Commonwealth is comprised mainly of developing countries, whose funding for development and development priorities are likely to be greatly affected by the new development agenda. It is a place where members can come together as equals, agree mutual priorities and goals through consensus, and where donor and recipient countries can meet outside of the usual donor/recipient relationship. Page | 7
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
The Commonwealth therefore has a distinctive voice on development, and on education within that. It is particularly concerned with the catalytic nature of education, seeing education as a foundation to economic growth and democracy rather than an adjunct. It is also uniquely concerned with the issues faced by small states, with 32 of its 54 members being considered as such (Crossley, Bray and Packer, 2011), and post-conflict countries, with 12 of its members currently identified as fragile, conflict or post-conflict affected countries (Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2012a and 2012b; World Bank, 2012). Of the 50 countries to be consulted by UNDP as part of the UN’s post-MDG consultation, 16 were members of the Commonwealth, but only four of these were small states (UNDP, 2012). The Commonwealth provides a platform for all its small states and conflict/post-conflict effected countries to have a voice, as well as speaking as a bloc of 54 countries that wish to ensure education remains high on the development agenda.
The Commonwealth perspective in the process of revising the global goals for development is important because of its linkages and networking structure. In addition to its ability to convene discussion among states as equals and its citizen-to-citizen links, it also has a worldwide network of around 90 professional and advocacy organisations that work at local, national, regional and international levels. All play crucial roles in policy, political or social aspects of Commonwealth life, and, as such, the Commonwealth post-2015 recommendations will represent the views of a large constituency – the population of the Commonwealth is over 2 billion people.
It is also important because of the convergence of emerging global concerns with traditional Commonwealth ones. UNESCO has noted that
As new challenges are recognized or emerge, the post-2015 policy agenda is expected to broaden its scope beyond poverty reduction and economic growth to include social and political challenges such as tackling environmental degradation, responding to climate change, promoting tolerance, democracy and good governance, and ensuring peace and security (2012d: 2).
These are archetypal Commonwealth concerns, to which the Commonwealth can bring an extensive and rich history of experience and knowledge: Commonwealth Ministers of Education have been meeting for 53 years, the longest of any sector in the Commonwealth.
3. The changed development context The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Education for All (EFA) goals were adopted globally in 2000. The MDGs set out eight headline goals for development, including two directly
Page | 8
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
related to education – and most others inseparable from educational investment (Lewin 2007) – while EFA sets out six goals for education. Together, the education MDGs and EFA constitute the global development framework for education, and are known collectively as the Internationally Agreed Goals (IAGs). The IAG targets were to have been achieved by 2015.
The context in which the new IAGs will be developed is radically different from that in which their predecessors were negotiated and agreed. This is true not only in terms of the global economy and international political consensus, but also in terms of education policy. New goals will need to be fit for a different purpose.
At the macro-level, the apparent shift in conceptualisation by some parties, of the role of government from provider or guarantor of service delivery, to a regulator of service delivery (Gansler and Lipitz, 2006), will undoubtedly affect the design and implementation of the post- 2015 framework. Shifts from the state to NGOs and the private sector in mobilising resources will result in a wider range of actors – with more diverse functions and priorities – implementing development interventions to achieve the revised IAGs. This implies greater participation of non- state actors and civil society in the development of policy and management of education (Kharas, 2011). However, it should not be assumed that all governments agree with this reconceptualisation. Moreover, the obligation to ensure that the right to education is fulfilled remains that of government: ‘non-state providers make contributions to educational access but remain much less important than public authorities’ (CREATE, 2011: 30). A key question therefore is, how willing and able national governments are to make this transition an issue for consideration especially among developing countries.
Combined with this qualitative change is a quantitative change: it is expected by some commentators that aid will be reduced in scale and importance globally in the coming decades, as governments become increasingly reliant on their own resources (Green, Hale and Lockwood, 2012). According to Green, Hale and Lockwood, this means that for the new framework ‘new arrangements have to be designed to influence governments, whereas the main impact of the MDGs was on the aid system’ (2012: 2). They suggest three ways in which this might be possible:
1. By changing national norms in areas such as women’s rights…
2. By directly influencing government decision making…
3. By giving civil society organisations and other domestic actors more tools with which to lobby, campaign, and secure action by their governments (2012: 3).
Page | 9
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
They go on to suggest six instruments necessary at global and regional levels which, working in concert, would be able to ‘nudge things along’ towards these new arrangements at the national level: big global norms; global goals and targets; regional goals and targets; global league tables; data transparency; and international law. A more comprehensive strategy is needed as the new global context and is significantly more complex than the one in 2000. This applies not only to the institutional environment, but also to the financial (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012b).
As well as changes in the global political environment, there have been fundamental changes in the concepts of the role and function of education. It has been argued that the ‘traditional’ model of education, which evolved to meet the needs of agrarian or early industrialised economies and societies, does not fit the needs of twenty-first century students and society. The didactic model is not appropriate in an age with an unprecedented rate of technological advancement, a fundamental shift from analogue to digital media1, and societies which aim for democratic, collegiate methods to achieve goals as well as hierarchical systems. Skills are increasingly seen as important alongside knowledge acquisition. Flexible and adaptable skills – soft rather than hard skills – and the ability to apply knowledge creatively and in ways that transform well-being and livelihoods are seen as vital for responsive knowledge-based economies. Further, educational experiences need to encourage understanding and behaviour change about sustainable development and livelihoods if the challenges of climate change and a return to sustainable growth that reduces poverty, increases productivity and enhances well- being are to be overcome. Farrell and Hartwell note:
The tradition model of education, which is now well-nigh universal, what is called… ‘the forms of formal schooling’, does not fit with what is now understood about how humans best learn and inherently serves very poorly the needs of vast numbers of youngsters, particularly those most marginalized by circumstances of birth. And society seems generally to be unable to significantly change that model on any large scale (2008: 36).
The reconceptualisation of education is moving it away from it being a stand-alone sector. The need to tackle HIV/AIDS more effectively; inclusiveness responding to gender differentials
1 Many countries simply do not have the level of ICT infrastructure (in terms of hardware and the skills necessary to make it functional) to support a version of twenty-first century skills which relies heavily on digital media, and the import of models based on these skills to contexts which cannot support existing infrastructures, risks exacerbating the digital divide.
Page | 10
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
building gender disparities and gaps, the effectiveness of school feeding programmes in increasing attendance; the efficacy of de-working programmes in increasing academic performance; the involvement of business in effective technical and vocational education and training (TVET) programmes: all these point towards a multi-sectoral approach to development. The original IAGs were based around an explicit assumption of the demarcation of sectors; these boundaries are no longer clear. This means that sectoral goals may be difficult – and undesirable – to establish, and harder to implement and monitor.
4. Strengths and weaknesses of the current framework There is extensive discourse on the strengths and weaknesses of the current framework based on data obtained in response to the established mediums for reporting targets. The findings indicate that while there are strengths in the consensus and advocacy aspects of the goals and overall aim, there are many weaknesses in the implementation of the interventions and the measurement of the achievement of the targets. Many of these have been articulated in the work of Lewin, 2012.
4.1 Strengths of the IAGs The common desire to meet the goals has been instrumental in mobilising and targeting financial and technical resources. The IAGs have been extremely influential as an advocacy tool, as a means of attracting and channelling development assistance, and in shaping the desired outcomes and hence modalities of development interventions (UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, 2012c). Their simplicity and brevity have meant that people who are not development experts have been engaged in tracking progress. The goals therefore provide a focus for public advocacy efforts such as the Global Campaign for Education, and also for internal lobbying for resources within development agencies, as the goals are aligned clearly with results frameworks.
Fukudu-Parr notes three ways in which the MDGs have been instrumental in shaping the international development debate:
First, the MDGs institutionalized the consensus on ending poverty — their broad purpose as a whole or a package — as an international norm.
Second, the MDGs have come to reshape the concept of ‘development’ to mean ending poverty.
Third, the MDGs have helped defining poverty as a multidimensional deprivation in the lives of people, including such dimensions as education, health, environment, food,
Page | 11
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
employment, housing, and gender equality – or ‘human poverty’ (2012: 3).
Although there appears to be a positive correlation between the MDGs and increased financing for social development (UN, 2012a), it is less clear that they have influenced countries’ national policies (Fukudu-Parr, 2012). However, the IAG indicators do provide a ready-made framework to which education sector plans can be aligned, facilitating international comparison of outcomes.
Based on the above points, any new framework should capitalise on the positive dimensions, concentrating on the demonstrated strengths of the IAGs. This means trying to maintain the momentum of the IAGs in leveraging resources, and retaining aspects of the IAGs which contribute to this such as simplicity, measurable outcomes, brevity and utility as an advocacy tool.
4.2 Weaknesses of the IAGs While there are a number of positive aspects to the IAGs in shaping and facilitating the global agenda, there are some notable weaknesses that have impacted on the effective implementation of the framework. Some of these detailed below.
Fukudu-Parr notes six weaknesses of the MDGs:
i. Poorly designed development goals.
ii. Composition is too narrow and excludes important dimensions of development.
iii. Lack of attention to important norms and principles, in particular falling short of human rights standards.
iv. Lack of attention to equality.
v. Unbalanced international political economy.
vi. Distortion of national priorities (2012: 11-12). i. Poorly designed development goals
Some indicators are ambivalently or vaguely constituted, which makes measurement and comparison difficult, or they overlap and are redundant. Definitions are ambiguous and therefore pose difficulties in assessing outcomes.
Page | 12
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
MDG 2 (universal primary education – UPE) and MDG 3 (gender parity) overlap. If UPE is achieved, then by definition all girls and boys attend school, so a separate measurement of gender parity in enrolment is arguably redundant (Vandemoortele, 2012). However, as Melamed notes,
the experience with the current education target, which is set at 100 per cent attendance, illustrates that this is not quite sufficient – there are still huge equity issues relating to attendance and to quality in the education sector, even after 12 years of a 100 per cent target (2012: 10).
With regard to EFA, Goal 6 is: ‘Improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognised and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.’ How quality is defined – and measured – is a highly-contested area, and it is not clear how everyone can be excellent, unless one refines ‘excellence’ to mean ‘achievement of one’s potential’. As Burnett and Felsman note,
That four of the six current EFA goals have had little impact has been due significantly to the very general way in which they are defined, permitting countries to interpret them as they will, including in some instances doing nothing about them (e.g. early childhood in many countries, adult literacy in most) (2012: 23).
As well as reflecting the compromises necessary to achieve the consensus required to adopt the goals globally, problems also arise from having two sets of goals: MDGs and EFA. As UNESCO notes, ‘due to flawed design these education goals are technically overlapping and limited in scope’ (UNESCO, 2012a: 4). For example, both MDG 3 and EFA 5 deal with eliminating gender parity. MDG 3 is stated as ‘Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015.’ EFA 5 is stated as ‘Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good quality.’ The MDG speaks of gender parity, whereas the EFA speaks of gender parity and equality. UNESCO explains EFA 5 thus: ‘This goal calls for an equal number of girls and boys to be enrolled in primary and secondary school by 2005 (UNESCO, ND). However, the goal is actually more complex, with enrolment being only one factor. The definition of ‘equality’ is not clear, but it might include the opportunities available to each gender in school, gender-based violence and differential learning outcomes. These might entail more qualitative evaluation. There is scope for this in the formulation of EFA 5, but not MDG 3.
Page | 13
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Having two sets of targets also makes it harder for education sector plans to align their results frameworks with global goals; increases monitoring and reporting requirements; and allows for greater scope of interpretation of goals, meaning that the lowest common denominator is used. More than one indicator to measure similar outcomes, together with the lack of definition of indicators, creates competing targets, and confusion on the achievement of the established goals.
It is important for clarity and focus that the number of goals be kept to the minimum. Consequently the two frameworks should be aligned so that they effectively constitute a single framework for education structured with two levels of goals. The first level would comprise a small number of principal goals – goals which capture a major dimension, as in the current MDGs. Each principal goal would contain a small number of subordinate goals. These second level goals would be more technical, like the current EFA goals. ii. Composition is too narrow and excludes important dimensions of development
The IAGs for education have encouraged development financing to coalesce around a limited number of results in a few development areas. Given the length of time since the goals were agreed, the allocation mechanisms for funds are well established in channels which contribute to these results. Melamed notes that ‘the existing MDGs produced something of a perverse incentive to elevate quantity over quality in the provision of education’, but that ‘It is well known that attendance at school does not necessarily reflect adequate learning’ (2012: 9). iii. Lack of attention to important norms and principles
Fukudu-Parr (2012) states that the human rights aspects of the goals were problematic as key development principles such as participation and accountability were not clearly structured or delineated, although it could be argued that the education goals were framed in a rights-based approach. Yamin notes that,
We need systems of global responsibility and global redistribution if we are to have an international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be fully realized (2012: para 6).
Another criticism was that gender equality and women’s empowerment were weaker goals than originally envisaged (Hulme, 2007). Given the emphasis on shared values in the Commonwealth,
Page | 14
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
the Commonwealth could contribute to the re-framing of the goals along more inclusive and democratic lines. iv. Lack of attention to equality
The IAGs aim for equity but do not specify how inequalities can be addressed through the goals. The framework and goals are neutral on the question of inequity and disempowerment. Inequality leads to economic inefficiency, political conflict, and institutional frailty, and, although the relationship is complex, explicitly targeting the disadvantaged can contribute to development outcomes and economic growth (World Bank, 2005; McKinley, 2009). It has therefore been argued that explicit targeting of the disadvantaged should be included in the framing of future goals (Fukudu-Parr, 2012). v. Unbalanced international political economy
Goal 8 of the MDGs (the global compact) in particular does not address the geo-political and economic imbalances which condition development. The goal is vague, making measurement difficult. Hulme and Scott, as well as seeing the development of the MDGs as being led by rich country interests, argue that ‘the overriding determinant of state action continues to be self- interest, and at present states do not see the MDGs or global poverty reduction as being particularly important to that state-interest (2010: 11). Among other issues, they state that ‘any future goals should ensure that national goals are set at the national level, ideally as part of a democratic process, and are not set globally’ as ‘the link between global goals and national development strategies has been problematic’ (2010: 12). If this view is accepted, it then follows that, at least, national control of some aspects of goal determination would be necessary, along with integration into national plans and policies. Finally, as McKinley notes,
Fostering greater equity (such as in educational attainments) might well enhance longterm growth. But how likely is such an impact in a capitalist economy based on an unequal distribution of wealth and power? (2009: 4). vi. Distortion of national priorities
International pressure to conform to the IAG agenda is strong in fragile states and those that are aid dependent, especially when the IAG targets are used as the basis for aid allocations. UNESCO (2012) advocates for national ownership and priority setting in different national circumstances and through different means of implementation, arguing for the need to resist a ‘one-size-fits- all’ approach, instead balancing global agenda setting with national target setting. The pressure Page | 15
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
to meet the goals meant that resources for other national priorities might be reduced. Having the same target and deadline for all countries regardless of disparate baselines means that some countries will be determined to have failed if they do not meet the targets in 2015, even though they may have made great progress.
Other weaknesses
There has been criticism that the original IAGs were too comprehensive and reflected more of a wish list without a clear conception of how they would be implemented, financed or how they fitted into other aspects of the global development architecture. In addition, there has been feedback relating to areas such as the lack of participation and engagement from countries, especially developing countries; the lack of an exit strategy and assumed success; and that the goals did not address how the division of roles and responsibilities for implementation would work effectively (Lewin, 2012; UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, 2012b). The UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda states that this means
The multilateral trade, finance and environmental architectures will need to be reassessed to ensure greater coherence such that they can more effectively enable implementation of the post-2015 agenda. Democratic deficits in some of the institutions of global governance will need to be addressed to ensure legitimacy in their decision-making. Greater coherence will also need to be sought between global and regional mechanisms of global governance (2012a: 30-31).
The lack of an exit strategy is important as many institutions have been set up to implement the current IAGs. The transition to a new framework needs to take this into consideration and should not be so abrupt or so dramatic as to undermine these structures. Existing institutions and modalities should be allowed to evolve with the changing goals, as drastic change is not possible or desirable
One of the notable weaknesses is related to the development of the previous goals which was felt, especially by developing countries, to be non-participatory (Vandemoortele, 2012). The new process therefore needs greater involvement and engagement with and of national governments, regional organisations and multi-lateral agencies in designing the post-2015 development framework for education at all levels. In addition, the goals should be globally relevant and applicable to all countries regardless of socio-economic development.
Page | 16
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
While the MDGs contained a sub-goal focussed on small states (Goal 8c: ‘Address the special needs of landlocked developing countries and small island developing States’), it has not been clear that sufficient attention has been paid in the implementation of the IAGs to the tension between global models and the particular circumstances of small states. The focus on small states should be retained and re-emphasised in the new development framework, which should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate diverse national characteristics.
5. The options The public discourse is that it is important that the post-2015 framework consider a range of options as one option is neither plausible nor desirable given the differential progress achieved to date and the importance of achieving those goals that are not yet attained. The scope and shaping of the post-2015 development agenda are crucial elements in the effective design and implementation of a framework that would address all education issues within the development framework and the need for a balance across the development landscape and their potential implications.
The UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA, 2012), for example, suggested the emergence of three main options for the post-2015 framework: i. Retaining the current MDGs and extending the timeline; ii. Restructuring the MDGs, to eliminate overlaps and include issues originally omitted (‘MDG- plus’); iii. Replacing the MDGs completely with an alternative framework which would focus on:
transforming the structure of the economies of developing countries; developing internal economic institutions to facilitate and sustain structural transformation; strengthening the capacities of developing countries for greater reliance on domestic resources and revenue; and spawning formal and entrepreneurial skills (UNECA, 2012: 131).
Lewin (2012) suggests three additional possibilities for the IAGs: iv. IAGs ‘lite’: a two-tier framework, with high level goals linked to regions/groups and context, and lower level goals linked and defined at national or regional level. v. IAGs ‘heavy’: a standardised framework with detailed global specifications linked to performance and funding. Page | 17
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
vi. IAGs ‘Rest In Peace’: termination of a global framework; IAGs would cease, replaced by separate national, bilateral and multilateral projects.
The following are the principal options being considered for the post-2015 structure
i. Retaining the current IAGs
ii. Restructuring the IAGs
iii. Replacing the IAGs
iv. A two-tier framework of global level and linked national goals
v. Standardised, detailed global specifications linked to performance and funding
vi. Termination of the IAGs
i. Retaining the existing goals would mean that the existing planning, implementation and monitoring structures could be retained, political momentum sustained, and countries which commenced in 2000 from a low starting point would have time to achieve the goals. This option would pose some major challenges as it would not be responsive to the changed global political and economic environment, and would shift the discourse from a global agenda to only those countries who will not have met the goals by 2015. ii. Restructuring the goals would allow them to respond to the changed context, and for the re- prioritisation of areas of action. This would allow for inclusion and provide structure and process for current priorities such as inclusive economic growth, skills for employment, climate change, quality and equity. This would also allow for the structure to be designed to address the identified weaknesses and strengths. iii. Replacing the goals would require constructing a new approach to development which is not based on aid but on a more comprehensive and cohesive international agenda. The aim of structural transformation would focus on development ‘enablers’ rather than development ‘objectives’ (UNECA, 2012). While aiming to transcend geostrategic blockages to development, this approach risks losing what remains of the international consensus around the elimination of poverty, although by re-designing the system in the light of the learning from the IAGs, it has the potential to be more focussed and effective.
Page | 18
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
iv. Two-tier goals would make the framework less simple, and lose the sense in the MDGs that all areas of poverty reduction intervention have of equal weight. This structure would provide a way of combining competing frameworks (such as education MDGs and EFA), thus increasing focus, efficiency and impact, and allow more realistic national or regional level goals responsive to different initial conditions, national priorities, and available resources to be set under the umbrella of a global framework. Some differentiation based on contextual realities is necessary to successful attainment. Differentiation might take the form of different attainment levels, or of different timescales for achieving targets. Differentiated goals make specific targets more possible, measurable and more accountable. Country-specific targets would allow greater specificity in indicators, and allow for secure national ownership within a global framework. v. A unified global framework would increase standardisation, clarity, efficiency in disbursement, and convergence in expectations, but could also result in a lack of situation specific relevance, limited resilience and divergence in aspirations (Lewin, 2012). Notwithstanding this, the new framework needs to be globally relevant. The MDGs and EFA were generally interpreted as applying to low or middle-income countries. However, all education systems need to be responsive to demands for greater equity and improved quality, and no country has truly 100% participation in the education system, nor 100% adult literacy. The new development framework should be constructed such that goals and targets apply to all countries or can be adapted to all countries, taking their starting points into consideration. vi. Terminating the IAGs would allow countries to follow their own policy priorities. However, without a global framework, international comparability in development performance could be compromised, and there might be reduced harmonisation and co-ordination among donors; a loss of international consensus and a time-bound imperative, and the attendant political will to achieve development; a reduced ability to mobilise financing, and increased transaction costs.
The proposed option includes the positive aspects of options i-iv that should be considered and incorporated into the new framework.
Page | 19
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Important goals have not been achieved and these should be retained.
Goals can be refined, only if necessary.
New goals should be introduced only if necessary.
A two-tier framework would provide a structure to manage global and regional/national goals, and align different frameworks in one streamlined structure.
There should be a limited number of goals and they should focus on outputs. Outputs should be measurable within existing reporting structures. Where this is not possible, new assessment structures should be simple and not create onerous monitoring and reporting requirements.
The two frameworks of EFA and the education MDGs should be aligned into one, post-MDG framework for education.
The new framework for education should be designed around two levels of goals.
The first level would comprise a small number of principal goals – the post-MDGs.
The second level would contain a number of subordinate goals – the post-EFA goals.
Each goal should include targets for Access, Equity and Quality.
6. The case for education in the new IAGs The case for education rests on three points. First, education was considered sufficiently important in 1990 to be featured in two of the eight MDGs and a separate global framework – the EFA goals. Achievement of these goals is not yet complete. Were the narrative arc of the 1990 education trajectory to be prematurely curtailed, it could be interpreted as an acceptance that the steady progress of humanity towards a better future is not guaranteed, and that large numbers of people will have to accept that for them and their children life will not be better.
Second, given the different context of development in 2012 compared to 2000, the case for education needs to be re-affirmed. The momentum from its historic importance cannot be assumed, and so the contribution education now makes towards development goals needs to be re-examined and re-articulated. In some instances, the case for education has moved from education for its own sake as an unambiguous public good, to education as a catalyst and value
Page | 20
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
multiplier of other interventions. This does not diminish the intrinsic value of education, but recognises that the changed context requires that this value needs to be understood more contextually, and interpreted explicitly in the light of its relationship with other sectors.
Third, education is important not only as a means but as an end. While education is instrumental in achieving democracy, economic growth and the fulfilment of human rights – it is also of value for its own sake, and the elevation of the human potential.
6.1 The unfinished business of education Since the development, of the IAGs the global environment has changed. The impact of factors such as the economic crisis and the re-emergence of environment issues onto the global agenda has resulted in education slipping down the priority list, and being in danger of slipping off the global development agenda.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has noted that he is ‘deeply concerned that education is slipping down the international priority list’ (UN, 2012b: 3). The 18CCEM Mauritius Communiqué stressed the importance of education as the driver of economic growth and development of human capital and further noted the primacy of education in a knowledge- driven world. However,
Ministers noted that unless robust advocacy for the pivotal role of education post- 2015 – in the economy, for society, for democracy and for development – is made, there was a risk that it might lose its place in the global priorities (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012a: 2).
Burnett gives four reasons for this decrease in importance:
1. Education (and human development more generally) has slipped on the global agenda as investing in people is no longer considered as overriding as it was.
2. There is no strong global education movement and no strong UN agency for education.
3. There is a dangerous perception outside the education community that the education goals are the closest to success of all the MDGs.
4. There is much less chance of linking education with international resource flows today than there was in 2000, except to low-income countries (2012: 25-26).
Page | 21
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
6.1.1 Progress against the MDGs for education in Commonwealth countries The education access and gender parity MDGs are among those goals considered to be the ones most likely to be achieved, at least by some countries. However, analysis of these claims shows that they are somewhat misleading. For example, with regard to MDG 2 (UPE), the 2012 Millennium Development Goals Report notes ‘Many countries facing the greatest challenges have made significant progress towards universal primary education’ (UN, 2012c: 4). While good progress towards achieving UPE in most Commonwealth countries has been made, some 23.3 million primary age children remain out of school in the Commonwealth. By 2015 only 13 Commonwealth countries are likely to be near UPE (set at 97% NER) (Menefee and Bray, 2012). Menefee and Bray note, ‘there appears to be a stalling of progress in most regions and rapid progress in others’ (2012: 35) and ‘while many Commonwealth countries are doing better, some are getting worse’ (2012: 34).
Reaching the hardest-to-reach children requires new strategies and new commitments, especially a focus on preventing drop-out, reducing repetition, focussing on universal completion, reducing the number of over-age children entering the system, and reaching the most marginalised. This implies a multi-sectoral approach:
The most disadvantaged out-of-school children need additional targeted measures and investments, some of which are beyond the field of education and many of which are costly and difficult to manage (UNICEF and UIS, 2012: 2).
MDG3 – Gender parity: The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012 states that ‘The world has achieved parity in primary education between girls and boys’ (UN, 2012c: 4). These headlines conceal a more complex reality. One of the challenges is the general interpretation that gender parity is intended for primary school age children. This gives the public the impression that the majority of work in education has been completed. The MDG for gender parity in education applies to all levels, not just primary. Parity in secondary and tertiary levels has not been achieved and in many countries there has been minimal progress.
Menefee and Bray note, with regard to secondary enrolment in the Commonwealth, ‘Gender inequity is a much more serious issue in secondary enrolment than in primary enrolment and is increasing in both scope and scale’ (2012: 45). They go on to note that
Gender inequity in secondary enrolment persists, and is magnified with growth… At least at the margins, in every regional grouping gender inequity in secondary
Page | 22
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
enrolment is forecast to get worse if trends continue (2012: 50).
Further, in some countries, girls outnumber boys in the classroom; in others, boys outnumber girls. UNESCO notes:
At tertiary level, regional disparities are even greater than at secondary level, with as few as six girls for every ten boys in sub-Saharan Africa, while around eight boys for every ten girls are studying at this level in North America and Western Europe (2012b: 107).
Therefore the aggregated figure – effectively an average – is misleading, and disguises the non- achievement of the goal. In reality, much work remains to be done with regard to enrolment and gender parity, especially in the Commonwealth.
6.1.2 Progress against the EFA Goals in Commonwealth countries Menefee and Bray (2012) provide a summary of progress against the EFA goals within the Commonwealth. Their findings and analysis are summarised as follows:
EFA Goal 1 – Pre-primary gross enrolment rate: Regionally, there have been strong gains in Asia and the Caribbean; slow and uneven gains in Africa; and loss of momentum in the Advanced Economies and Pacific regions. However, there is not enough data for regional comparisons of net enrolment. Africa has the lowest median pre-primary gross enrolment rate at 29.9 per cent. The Advanced Economies have the highest at 81.0, followed by the Caribbean at 80.9. Asia’s rate is 53.8; the Pacific’s is 59.8. Intraregional variation is very high: in Africa, the rate ranges from 2.4 to 96.7; in Asia it ranges from 13.5 to 113.9. The lowest variation is within the Advanced Economies, but that still varies between 71.1 and 111.2 per cent.
EFA Goal 2 – Primary Education: There has been a rapid rise in Net Enrolment Rate in Africa; gains in Pacific and Advanced Economies, but a downward movement in Asia and the Caribbean. Most out-of-school children are in Africa and Asia; although Africa’s enrolment rates have risen dramatically, the number of out-of-school children might also have been increasing because of population growth. Regional median gross enrolment rates are: 102.8 in Advanced Economies; 113.6 in Africa; 103.4 in Asia; 104.2 in the Caribbean; and 108.3 in the Pacific. Within regions there is a wide variation, especially in Africa (where countries range from 82.6 to 142.6) and the Pacific (60.1 to 117.2).
EFA Goal 3 – Life Skills: The goal is imprecise, which makes measurement difficult. This has been recognised by UNESCO, which has been working on developing indicators, but it notes that
Page | 23
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
‘recent developments will not produce sufficient data in time to measure goal 3 adequately before the deadline has passed’ (UNESCO, 2012c: 4). It is worth noting, however, that 461 million of the 775 million illiterate adults in the world are in the Commonwealth.
EFA Goal 4 – Median Distance to EFA Literacy Goal: Africa and the Caribbean are set to exceed their goals; Advanced Economies and Asia are within 1.5 points of their goals; but according to the data available, illiteracy is growing in the Pacific. In terms of population, 99% of illiteracy in the Commonwealth is in Asia and Africa; with four out of five illiterates being in Bangladesh, India, Nigeria or Pakistan.
EFA Goal 5 – Gender Equity: Gender imbalances in enrolment are found to be more serious in secondary than primary schooling. In some countries and regions, boys rather than girls are disadvantaged (see 6.1.1 above). Regional medians of gender parity index at primary level (GER) within the Commonwealth range from 0.96 in the Pacific to 1.00 in the Advanced Economies. There are significant intra-regional variations: for example, countries in the Pacific region range from 0.89 to 1.06; in Africa they range from 0.86 to 1.04.
EFA Goal 6 – Quality: This goal has also been found to be difficult to measure, with proxy indicators used including expenditures, teacher-student ratios, percentage of trained teachers, and standardised test scores such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) and SACMEQ (The Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality).
In terms of public educational spending per student as a proportion of total public expenditures, the Advanced Economy countries have the highest proportional expenditures, with a median of 21.2 per cent. Africa, the Pacific, and the Caribbean all have medians of approximately 15 per cent. The Asian Commonwealth countries have the lowest median, at 8.9 per cent. All regions demonstrate large intra-regional variations, such as a range of 11.5 to 31.5 in Advanced Economies; between 6.6 and 24.6 in Africa; and between 8.0 and 23.5 in the Caribbean.
The median primary teacher-student ratios in the Commonwealth range from 34.9 in Africa to 16.0 in Advanced Economies. The Caribbean median is 16.2; Asia is 23.9; and the Pacific 25.0. Within Africa, the ratio ranges between 12.5 and 79.3, whereas in the Advanced Economies it ranges between 13.8 and 18.
Page | 24
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
The median percentages of trained teachers in primary and secondary schools respectively are: Africa, 88.4 and 81.3; Asia, 80.6 and 78.1; and Caribbean, 65.7 and 40.46. For the Pacific, data is only available for primary level (85.4), while there is insufficient data for the Advanced Economies. As with the other indicators, there is significant variation within regions. For example, in Africa, the percentage of trained primary teachers ranges from 48 to 100 per cent; in the Caribbean, the percentage of trained secondary teachers ranges from 30.4 to 89 per cent.
Bray and Menefee note that while much has been achieved, gaps remain. Data tend to be strongest on EFA 2 (UPE). While it is an important goal, it tends to overshadow the others leading to neglect of the broad EFA agenda in countries that had achieved UPE. All goals need measurable targets and better data, and it is important to focus on meaningful learning outcomes as a dimension of poverty (Lewin, 2012). Looking ahead, in all Commonwealth countries further attention is needed to equity and to quality education for all.
6.1.3 Global progress A review of the IAGs indicates that the post-2015 structure of the development framework should reflect and recognise the current situation, which re-affirms that millions of children remain out of school. Globally,
The number of primary school age children out of school has fallen from 108 million to 61 million since 1999, but three-quarters of this reduction was achieved between 1999 and 2004. Between 2008 and 2010, progress stalled altogether (UNESCO, 2012c: 3).
In terms of MDG 3 and EFA 5, although there has been convergence in enrolment between boys and girls, globally there are still 68 countries that have not reached gender parity in primary education (girls are disadvantaged in 60 of them), and 97 countries have not reached gender parity in secondary education (girls are disadvantaged in 43 of them). There are differences in educational outcomes between girls and boys (with girls outperforming boys in some subjects – and that gap widening – and boys outperforming girls in others) (UNESCO, 2012c). Finally, as UNECA (2012) notes, retaining children in education requires effort as much as enrolling them – drop-out is still excessively high in many countries, and ‘most children out of school are drop outs, not those who never enrol’ CREATE, 2011: 26). Population growth rates remain very high in a number of Commonwealth countries, which mean that the number of children entering the education system is continually expanding.
Page | 25
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
UNESCO concludes that ‘progress towards many of the goals is slowing down, and that most EFA goals are unlikely to be met’ (2012c: 1). Access to education, disaggregated by gender, must therefore remain a core component of the new framework for education, in addition to a redefinition of UPE. Cultural factors, which include gender subordination, also have to be considered when rethinking the post-2015 framework and ways to set and measure targets.
6.2 The catalytic role of education – its extrinsic value Education has a catalytic function, adding value to other development interventions. Education has the primary role in producing the skilled workforce necessary for economic development. It is through education that countries can develop the human capital necessary to sustain their economic and social wellbeing while having due regard to the needs of future generations.
Increased education makes an important contribution to societies’ economic growth and to the economic fortunes of individuals. Evidence also suggests that for low- income countries, expansion of primary education represents the best investment. For middle income countries, where primary education is typically already widespread, increased investment in secondary education tends to have a greater impact on economic growth (UN, 2003: 48).
It has been suggested that the 2000 global goals represented targets which both advocates of the neo-liberal economic paradigm who promoted growth and governance issues, and those more focussed on the social impact of poverty, could adhere to, by providing a compelling, binding unifying principle: poverty reduction as a moral imperative (Fukudu-Parr, 2012). Education provides a similar, cohesive imperative:
A large body of research shows that primary education has a catalytic role in improving economic and social conditions among the poorest segments of society, including girls, rural dwellers and minorities. An important conclusion is that the expansion of educational opportunities is one of the most powerful tools for improving such conditions. Another important conclusion is that the expansion of educational opportunities is one of the most powerful tools that Governments have for promoting both income growth and equality (UN, 2003: 48).
Education remains key for social and economic development. Ravallion, Squire and Bruno note:
Policies aimed at helping the poor accumulate productive assets – especially policies to improve schooling, health, and nutrition – when adopted in a relatively nondistorted framework, are important instruments for achieving higher growth (1999: i).
Page | 26
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Education is also important for democracy and human rights to be fully realised (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2003). In order to achieve the twin aims of democracy and development, the mutual interdependence of post-2015 Development Framework goals should be emphasised, while also focussing on country-specific and globally-specified critical areas for development. This is something that was recognised in the original Millennium Declaration, but nonetheless got lost as the headline goals became the focus of attention. To refocus the original intent, the revised development framework should re-emphasise a multi-sectorial approach to development, along with identified key measures of performance.
It is recognised that growth is necessary but is insufficient if not equitable. Melamed notes that
Approximately two-thirds of those currently living in extreme poverty are from ethnic minorities within their own country. A specific focus on inequality and the most excluded throughout the new goals would ensure that policy attention and resources are focused on the poorest (2012: 1).
She argues that solving today’s problems in health and education should be one of the key objectives in the post-2015 development agenda. There are clear links between lack of education and poverty. Melamed notes that ‘Just under half of the extremely poor live in households where the head has “no education”’ (2012: 7). She further notes that problems with education mean that it has not had the expected contribution to development. The challenge is that some long- term aims of education that relate to values and citizenship, are difficult to measure, as is the long-term impact that educated citizens will have on the development of their country. A person leaving education aged 16 today will retire from the workforce around the year 2061; throughout their career they will have used the skills and knowledge gained during their education, along with the ability gained at the same time to acquire new skills and knowledge. This suggests a long-term view be taken.
The catalytic view of education is realised in the current framework for education. Some of the ways in which education assists in the achievement of the MDGs follow:
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger (MDG 1):
Some 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty – reducing the global rate by 12% – if all students in low-income countries acquired basic reading skills… Getting all children into basic education, while raising learning standards, could boost growth by 2% annually in low-income countries (UN, 2012b: 11).
Page | 27
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Gender equality in education also makes significant contributions to a nation’s economic growth and poverty reduction as well as to reduced malnutrition, fertility, and child mortality… A one-year increase in schooling of all adult females in a country is associated with an increase in Gross Domestic Product per capita of around $700 (UNIFEM, ND: 1).
Further, education quality directly affects individual earnings (Hanushek and Wößmann, 2007), while ‘Girls’ education prevents the intergenerational transmission of poverty’ (UN Women, 2011: 106).
Promote gender equality and empower women (MDG 3):
Educated girls tend to become women with greater economic independence. They have an increased ability to negotiate and bargain in home, community and economic life. Educated girls and women tend to participate more in public life, and they can manage natural resources in a more sustainable manner (Panos, 2011: 3)
Reduce child mortality (MDG 4):
Reduction in child mortality is closely linked to increase in education, especially of women’s education levels. Over half of the reduction in the global mortality of children under 5 years of age in the period 1970-2009 is linked to increased education among females of reproductive age (Gakidou, Cowling, Lozano and Murray, 2010) (although Desai and Alva (1998) found a weaker link, noting that education acts as a proxy indicator for socio-economic status, but that paternal education also has a positive link).
Improve maternal health (MDG 5):
Although the evidence of a link between maternal education and reduced maternal mortality rates is mixed, there is a significant link between these rates and healthcare service access and quality (Bulatao and Ross, 2003). Provision of such services relies on an adequate number of sufficiently trained health workers. Reducing maternal mortality rates is dependent on a number of inter-related variables – a ‘package’ – and
unless training is to the level of a skilled attendant, community health workers will not be able to provide most elements of an effective package of interventions. Thus the extent and content of current training, together with the degree to which the community health worker is a multipurpose worker, are important considerations [in reducing maternal mortality] (Campbell and Graham, 2006: 1293).
Page | 28
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Combat HIV & AIDS, Malaria, and other diseases (MDG 6):
Vandemoortele and Delamonica state that ‘education is the best available protection against HIV infection’ (2002: 6). Further, ‘an inverse association between the disease burden and the level of education exists for most infectious diseases’ (2012: 6). This is not only due to increased information and awareness gained through education, but also the increased empowerment of educated individuals to change behaviours and to spread information through the community. It has been shown that maternal education has a significant effect on children’s immunisation status (Desai and Alva, 1998), demonstrating the inter-generational impact of education.
Ensure environmental sustainability (MDG 7):
As UNESCO notes, ‘Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving capacity of the people to address environment and development issues’ (2006: 13).
The provision of quality education should be explicitly recognised as a fundamental precondition for success in development goals in other sectors in the new framework.
6.3 Education for its own sake – its intrinsic value As well as its extrinsic value, education has intrinsic value. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) argues that ‘Providing education to individuals for their empowerment contributes to social and economic growth’ (2010: 2). It goes on to note that education
is a basic right that should be equally enjoyed by all people. Only if people satisfy their need for basic learning can they increase the range of choices in their lives and develop their independence (2010: 1).
JICA further notes that beyond this value to the individual, education is essential for society:
If people acquire wide knowledge, various skills, and deep cultural awareness, they can deepen their understanding of circumstances, including themselves and the world, develop a sense of values and mutual understanding with others who are from different cultures, and contribute to the creation of a peaceful society that respects symbiosis. In today’s world, where conflicts frequently occur, this role of education has become more and more important (2010: 2).
It is these social principles that are at the core of Commonwealth values.
A further argument rests on a combination of the perspectives of education as a means and as an end. Education has the ability to increase human capabilities, especially the enhancement of
Page | 29
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
capacities and opportunities and the development of judgement in relation to the appropriate exercise of capacities (Saito, 2003). Terzi argues that education is both a basic capability, in that its absence is detrimental to the individual, and that it is ‘fundamental and foundational to different capabilities’ (2004: 9). Education can also be considered as a means to provide ‘permanent social protection’, as it raises employability; raises individual permanent income, consumption and welfare, which should translate into higher wealth, better housing and greater possession of durables; reduces individual income risk, due to longer employment durations; can be passed on inter-generationally; and has a positive correlation with output growth (Checchi and Salvi, 2010). In framing the goals, then, education’s instrumental value, its intrinsic value, and the relation between these, should be considered.
7. Commonwealth focus Three recurrent core concerns emerged from the process of developing Commonwealth recommendations. These are Access, Equity and Quality. There is a clear relation between these and the UN Secretary-General’s three priorities for education articulated in Education First – ‘put every child in school’, ‘improve the quality of learning’ and ‘foster global citizenship’ (UN, 2012b) – with the Commonwealth approach seeing global citizenship as integrated within Equity.
7.1 Access Achieving UPE with renewed emphasis on learning especially in areas of literacy and numeracy should continue to be a principal focus. But economic development requires a stronger focus on secondary and post-secondary education. The current framework arguably focuses on primary education; the new framework should expand to encapsulate not just the importance of later (and earlier) levels, but also the articulation between them. Education should be seen holistically as a continuum and lifelong. As secondary and post-secondary educations have higher unit costs than primary, this means that the second period of a global development framework for education may have greater resource implications than the first. The goals should recognise that ‘over-age entry to primary school and delayed progression are substantial impediments to the achievement of EFA’ in many countries (CREATE, 2011: 28).
7.2 Equity The geography of poverty is changing. One view focuses on the dividing line between poor and middle-income countries. Sumner states that the two billion poorest people (those living on
Page | 30
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
US$2 a day or less) currently live in middle income countries (MICs), with 500 million in low income countries (LICs), but that
Even with growth, world poverty us projected to remain split 50/50 between LICs and MICs until 2030. Given that some of today/s LICs will be MICs by then, it is possible that only a third of the world’s poor will be living in LICs in 2030 (2012: 1).
Another perspective is that the dividing line is between stable and fragile states, and that
by 2025, the locus of global poverty will overwhelmingly be in fragile, mainly low- income and African, states, contrary to current policy preoccupations with the transitory phenomenon of poverty concentration in middle-income countries (Kharas and Rogerson, 2012: 3).
Rogerson notes that
in terms of the numbers, because so many poor are already concentrated in middle- income but fragile states like Pakistan or Nigeria, which are not predicted to make rapid improvements… the two accounts already overlap to a considerable extent (2012: para 3).
Clearly the distribution of poverty – and income – will be central to overcoming poverty. With regard to education, the great inter-regional and intra-regional divides in education outcomes have been demonstrated above. Moreover, ‘the assessment of progress towards the MDGs has repeatedly shown that the poorest and those disadvantaged because of gender, age, disability or ethnicity are often bypassed’ (UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, 2012c: 3).
The question of equitable access to quality education for all is not just a matter for LIC and MICs. Widening gaps between rich and poor in most countries (Tawil, 2012) have impacts not just on access but also on the quality of educational outcomes, creating spirals of disadvantage, as poorly-educated individuals are not able to fulfil their potential and therefore experience reduced scope for social mobility. While the ideal remains equality of educational experience, equitable means of tackling the effects of inequality are required. Compensatory or targeted education can help disadvantaged groups towards achieving a more equal share of resources. The true costs of education need to be borne in mind in developing inclusion policies – while nationally compulsory education may be free in many countries, there are hidden costs, such as uniforms, books and stationery, the opportunity cost of not working, and the increasing prevalence of accessing private tuition need to be considered – such ‘shadow education’ remains a problem, as some households still need to pay significant amounts for private tutorials in
Page | 31
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
countries where this practice exists. Innovative means of promoting inclusion, such as outreach programmes targeting excluded groups using existing students, and identifying students early who might struggle academically and providing remedial programmes, should be pursued.
The research shows that while much progress has been made in addressing equity and equality issues in education, much remains to be done. According to Lewin,
Those who remain excluded are disproportionately poor, female in some locations, socially/ethnically/linguistically marginalised, with disability, older, remote, rural, urban, migrants, displaced, illiterate, and in fragile States. Many are ‘silently excluded’ by being enrolled but being poor attenders, overage, low achieving or a combination of these attributes (2012: 4).
This applies not only to access to and completion of education for marginalised or disadvantaged groups, but also in the provision of education suitable to their needs. There should also be integration with other sectors, including health, social service and business sectors, to ensure that education for special groups intersects with the provision of support and opportunities outside education.
Data collection on the links between disadvantage and educational outcomes is getting stronger. For example, the World Inequality Database in Education provides a global scorecard ranking the extent of education poverty in countries around the world.2 Such data enables a more sophisticated approach to targeting the disadvantaged.
An overarching inclusive strategy for education is required to combat all forms of disadvantage and discrimination, including socio-economic status, gender, geography, ethnicity, sexual identity and special needs. Ensuring adequate resources for achieving these ‘quality with equity’ objectives will require international collaboration to mobilise resources for low-income countries and disadvantaged communities.
Poverty remains the over-riding factor necessitating global development goals. Therefore, equity objectives should focus on narrowing the gap in learning outcome achievement related to household income, but should also include other disadvantaged or marginalised groups, such as those disadvantaged by gender, special needs, location or social group.
2 http://www.education-inequalities.org/.
Page | 32
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
7.3 Quality Quality teaching and learning should be the principal focus of education systems. A ‘quality with equity’ approach, in which quality is developed complementarily alongside equity, should be adopted. For the purposes of the goals, indicators of learning outcomes should be measurable, and comparable, as well as responsive to different contexts
Quality of education is a contested and dynamic concept. It has evolved from a focus on inputs (qualification of teachers, teacher-pupil ratio, textbook-pupil ratio etc.) to the teaching and learning process itself (i.e., the way inputs are used) and the results obtained (the learning outcomes). While significant gains have been made in the areas of access and equity, there is still great inconsistency among Commonwealth countries in their delivery of quality.
The development of appropriate knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that enhance individual ability to make informed choices and contribute to social and economic development are not necessarily reflected in the learning outcomes at the moment. Globally, at least 250 million children cannot read or count even if they have spent four years in school (UNESCO, 2012c). There is a strong linkage between learning and completion: drop out is affected by numerous, often inter-linked factors, but the quality, relevance, safety and learning environment of the education experience are among them (CREATE, 2011). Quality needs to be one of the principal foundations and focus of the development framework. This will ensure not only access and equity but also quality learning outcomes are part of a relevant and effective education system. The new framework should therefore have achievement and learning for all at its core.
Work is currently being done on setting global standards for learning which will be helpful in determining minimum standards for education outcomes (Learning Metrics Task Force, ND). It should be noted that quality is a relative term, based on context:
Educational quality likely means something very different for a suburban school in Sydney, Australia, than it does for a rural school on the shores of Lake Malawi. Thus it is difficult to find conceptually meaningful units of qualitative analysis that apply across the broad educational spectrum of the Commonwealth (Menefee and Bray, 2012: 51).
Whilst defining quality and operationalising benchmarks will be important for measuring progress, any definition will need to bear this in mind. As Tawil notes,
The World Bank Education Strategy 2020, for instance, views ‘learning gains as a key metric of quality’ overlooking the fact that current large-scale assessments only
Page | 33
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
measure a limited range of cognitive skills (2012: 5).
Given the trend for attention, effort and resources to become focused on goals, limiting the outcome of education to one or two easily measurable indicators creates the danger that education systems will force teachers to ‘teach to the test’, focussing on the learning outcomes on which they will be assessed, rather than more holistic knowledge and skills, or indeed the social, ethical and spiritual outcomes of education.
National learning assessments (NLAs) would therefore be more appropriate ways to measure quality than global learning standards, as they are contextually based and are also already institutionalised in national education systems, making data collection more efficient and relevant. This means that NLAs will need to accord with global benchmarks which aim to ensure a wide range of educational outcomes are achieved, so that not only cognitive but non-cognitive aspects are captured.
7.3.1 Teacher development The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. Ensuring the quality of teachers, from selection into preparation through continuing professional development and performance appraisal, should be pursued through an integrated approach.
It has long been recognised that ‘the most important factor for a good quality education is the teacher’ (NORAD, 2011: para 3). The impact the teacher makes in the classroom is affected by a diverse range of interconnected factors: their academic achievement and professional experience; pre-service preparation and training; how and where they were deployed; the match of their skills and abilities to the role they are required to fulfil; the incentives offered to them; the curriculum, assessment modalities and teaching resources; and the quality of continuous professional development, and its alignment with career progression and remuneration. In order to improve learning outcomes, teacher education and training institutions need to be strengthened and expanded to ensure that there is adequate supply of well-trained teachers.
7.3.2 Education leadership and management Structured professional development of education leaders and managers is required. Formal training opportunities, offering high quality, relevant and recognised professional development, should become a standard requirement.
Page | 34
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
More emphasis needs to be placed on leading the learning and teaching processes through the enhancement of quality of school leaders. Before assuming a leadership role, a teacher ought to be provided with appropriate leadership education and training. Also necessary is support for education leaders and managers at all levels to improve and assure quality, and the development of local, context sensitive, research and evaluation capacity to strengthen educational planning and development processes, through multi-sectorial and inter-disciplinary approaches.
7.3.3 Technology for teaching and learning Learners and teachers should be equipped with competencies in technologies which are relevant, useful and attainable to them. Simple and practical new ways to measure contextual technological competence should be developed and integrated into curriculum and assessment.
Fundamental shifts in the availability, function, cost and utility of technology have encouraged a paradigm shift in approaches to pedagogy, curriculum and assessment. This has implications for what, how and why students are taught, and the training of educators. Preparation for a world increasingly defined by technology needs to be reflected in education policy and practice. Reducing the digital divide, and increasing the number of digital natives, are complex issues, inter-related with infrastructure, software and hardware provision; electricity; literacy and numeracy, among others. Technology related goal should not target infrastructure, but focus on ICT-related access and learning outcomes.
The overriding consideration in any attempt to harness technology for education is the appropriateness of the technology. This may range from traditional technologies to modern technologies and the use of relevant models for communication and learning. Setting targets for countries with widely disparate technology bases will be difficult, but should be based on learning outcomes, not technological inputs.
8. The post-2015 development framework for education The principal recommendations for the structure of the post-2015 development framework for education are as follows:
Page | 35
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
• The two frameworks of EFA and the education MDGs should be aligned into one, post- MDG framework for education.
• The new framework for education should be designed around two levels of goals – principal and subordinate.
• The first level should be comprised of three principal goals – the post-MDGs.
• The second level would contain a limited number of subordinate goals – the post-EFA goals.
• Targets and deadlines would focus on 2025 and options would be available for individual countries, depending on starting point, ambition and capacity.
• Access, equity and quality indicators would be included or captured in subordinate goals, as appropriate.
• The architecture of the framework should reflect four underlying themes that should be mainstreamed across the goals: Education in Emergencies, Migration, Gender and Education for Sustainable Development.
Based on the above analysis and the views expressed by Commonwealth Ministers, it is proposed that three principal goals for education be contained in the post-2015 development framework. These would be positioned in the development framework in a similar place to the current education MDGs. The principal goals would be supplemented by six more detailed, technical goals. These would be positioned in a similar place to the current EFAs. The two sets of goals would be aligned to ensure there were no overlaps or gaps. Implicit in the principal goals, and explicit in the subordinate goals, are the areas of focus of Access, Equity and Quality.
There are also four themes which affect all goals and should be considered or embedded into the indicators and targets. These are Education in Emergencies, Migration, Gender, and Education for Sustainable Development.
8.1 Principal goals The principal education goals, together with illustrative indicators and targets, are shown below. As these are ‘super-goals’ reflecting the contents of the subordinate goals, to avoid repetition the rationale for these goals is contain within the section on the subordinate goals. Target levels and timescales are left open, as these would depend on country starting points and national priorities.
Page | 36
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Education goal 1
Goal: Every child completes a full cycle of a minimum of 9 years of continuous, free basic education and demonstrates learning achievement consistent with national standards
Indicator: Percentage of boys and girls who complete a minimum of 9 years of basic education, to the appropriate national and, where appropriate, international, standard of completion, by the age of 15
Target: 100% of boys and girls within xx years
Education goal 2
Goal: Post-basic education expanded strategically to meet needs for knowledge and skills related to employment and livelihoods
Indicator: Percentage of students of senior secondary/TVET/tertiary age (15-25) who complete an accredited qualification
Target: X% of boys and girls within xx years, depending on country starting point
Education goal 3
Goal: Reduce and seek to eliminate differences in educational outcomes among learners associated with household wealth, gender, special needs, location, age and social group
Indicators: Percentage of children from the bottom 20% of household income achieving x% in national learning assessments (NLAs) compared to those from the top 20%
Comparative achievement of boys compared to girls in NLAs
Comparative achievement of those with special needs in NLAs
Comparative achievement of those in disadvantaged geographic locations in NLAs
Comparative achievement of those from marginalised social groups in NLAs
Target: X% of boys and girls within xx years
Page | 37
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
8.2 Subordinate goals The subordinate goals deal with or address both the range of education levels along with the factors of participation and infrastructure:
i. Early childhood education and development
ii. Basic education
iii. Post-basic and post-secondary education
vi. Non-formal education and lifelong learning
v. Participation
vi. Infrastructure
Each of these goals would feature at least one indicator related to Access, Equity and Quality. Illustrative indicators are suggested for each subordinate goal below.
8.2.1 Early childhood education and development The role of early childhood education and development (ECE/D) in improving learning outcomes is clear (Mitchell, Wylie and Carr, 2008). ECE/D takes place at a critical phase in a child’s cognitive and social development, and so particular attention is necessary on ensuring its provision is accessible, high-quality, relevant and focussed on the skills and values a child will require to be a lifelong learner and play a positive role in society. Universal provision and access should therefore be a priority, along with the training of ECE/D-specific teachers and the development of attainable curricula which promote functional literacy, numeracy and technological skills.
Progression towards universal early childhood education is the aim, but this will need to be progressively realised. The quality of curriculum content and the deployment of sufficient, adequately trained ECE/D teachers should also be a focus alongside access.
For those countries who will have achieved UPE by 2015, the movement towards universal ECE/D can begin (without losing commitment to primary education). For those countries who will not have achieved UPE by 2015, while ECC/D is important, resource constraints mean that universal provision is unrealistic. Differentiated targets are proposed.
Page | 38
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Early childhood education and development goal
Goal: Reduce and seek to eliminate early childhood under-nutrition and avoidable childhood disease, and universalise access to community based ECE/D and pre- school below age 6 years
Indicators: Basic health and child development
Body Mass Index, immunisation rates, childhood diseases
Participation rates in organised ECE/D and pre-school by age
8.2.2 Basic education Universal primary education remains an important goal, and its essence should be retained. However, it should be expanded to universal basic education (UBE), which is defined as 100 per cent of boys and girls completing a minimum of nine years of basic education, at the right age, which means that each child graduates with functional literacy, numeracy and life skills. These competencies should relate to learning outcome indicators, and reporting on UBE would include the number of boys and girls who complete the minimum number of years and who reach this standard. However, it is recognised that inclusion of secondary and post-secondary education targets are a natural progression from the first set of MDGs. Each of these sectors, therefore, would form part of a holistic approach towards educational opportunity, and should be reflected in the formulation of the new goals.
UBE would result in all children graduating with minimum cognitive achievement, in numeracy and literacy, and also minimum non-cognitive achievement. They should be able to contribute positively to society, have a clear set of ethical values, appropriate respect for positive cultural and legal norms and values, and be able to work co-operatively with others. This aspect of development will require time. Therefore all children should be guaranteed a minimum period of compulsory, free education, to enable them to develop cognitively and non-cognitively. If countries wish to increase this minimum period of primary education to accord with their systems and priorities, that should be encouraged, but they should not offer less.
Page | 39
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Basic education goals
Goals: Universalise an ‘expanded vision of access’ to a full cycle of a minimum of 9 years of continuous basic education
Successful achievement of national learning outcomes in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains for both primary and lower secondary cycles at age appropriate levels up to the age of 15 years
Indicators: Enrolment at Grades 1-12
Completion rate by age at Grades 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Trained and qualified teacher rate
Trained and qualified school leader rate
National Learning Assessment standards at Grade 3, 6, 9 and 12
Yield (level of achievement * % of age group achieving level)
8.2.3 Post-basic and post-secondary education ‘Basic education’ can include primary and lower secondary education, depending on country context. For the purpose of the goals, ‘basic education’ assumes a minimum of nine years of continuous post-ECE/D education that may or may not include a secondary element.
8.2.3.1 Secondary education As more and more children complete primary schooling, the secondary education system is put under enormous pressure as it tries to accommodate them (Tawil, 2012). Added to this is the need to increase transition rates from primary to secondary education without compromising the quality of provision. Conversely, as the primary system expands, it creates a need for people educated to at least secondary level to become teachers and to manage the system: therefore, ‘expanding access to secondary schooling is critical to achieving universal access to primary schools’ (CREATE, 2011: 30). Therefore the post-2015 framework must include broadening access to secondary education as a top priority, with the eventual aim of providing free, compulsory, quality education up to the age of 18. While strengthening secondary education, gender issues such as enrolment of girls and under performance of boys need to be emphasised. So too does the character and purpose of secondary education. As Verspoor notes in relation to secondary
Page | 40
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
education in sub-Saharan Africa,
The transformation of a traditional elite system that prepares a few privileged students into one that provides opportunities for further learning to a rapidly increasing proportion of adolescents is an urgent need throughout the region. But the challenge is not just expansion; it encompasses quality improvement, relevance, and equity at the same time (2008: 19).
Progression towards universal secondary education should be commenced. Access to education should not be confined to primary education; in order to produce economically productive citizens, students need the acquisition of knowledge and skills available at the secondary level, which means there is a need to complete secondary education. This will need to be progressively realised, due to constraints on capacity and resources, and the potential for too- rapid increases in access to negatively impact on quality.
While secondary systems need to be prepared to receive increased numbers of children graduating from primary schools, it must be recognised that resources are limited, and secondary expansion must not take place at the expense of primary, or vice versa. A differentiated goal is therefore proposed. For those countries which will have achieved UPE by 2015, while maintaining the commitment to primary enrolment, they should begin or complete the movement towards universal secondary education. For those countries which will not have achieved UPE by 2015, they should ensure that secondary access increases at a rate proportional to the increase in graduates from primary.
8.2.3.2 Post-secondary education In order for countries to compete effectively in the global economy, and to specialise in areas of comparative advantage, it will become increasingly necessary to achieve a workforce educated to tertiary or higher levels. Chang, Kaltani and Loayza (2009), for example, found in a cross-country study that the positive impact of trade on economic growth is larger if it is accompanied by higher education levels. Countries will need to adopt specific, measurable targets for participation levels at each stage of post-secondary education. Given the relative expense of tertiary and higher education, innovative means of ensuring equality of access and quality of provision will need to be found. There should be no impediments to pursuing post-secondary education pathways should an individual choose to do so. There should be equal opportunity for all to access post-secondary education based on individual choice.
The completion of relevant, high-quality post-secondary education should be given greater
Page | 41
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
priority, recognising the massively increased demands on the system as a result of increased participation in primary and secondary education and structural shifts in economies towards greater proportions of service sector and knowledge based industries, and including increased attention to open and distance education provision.
Given the cost of post-secondary education, and the wide starting points of countries, two goals are proposed: one absolute – on gender parity – and one differentiated – on provision of post-secondary education. The indicator is the same for both goals, but the target in the second goal is relative, and only relevant to countries which will have less than 20% enrolment in post- secondary education in 2015. Enrolment measurements would need to capture students enrolled in open and distance learning, and nationals of one country receiving post-secondary education in another.
8.2.3.3 Skills and technical and vocational education and training Diversified economies require a diversified workforce; diverse learning interests, needs and abilities require diverse education pathways. Skills for employability and entrepreneurship, ‘twenty-first century skills’, life skills and soft skills, and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) are becoming increasingly fundamental to resilient, flexible and adaptive economic development (UNESCO, 2012c). EFA 3 (promote learning and life skills for young people and adults) should be redefined to focus on skills and competency development for employability for citizens including functional literacy, numeracy and IT skills within a lifelong learning perspective. Learning for employability and entrepreneurship – learning for the economy – should not be limited to certain subsectors but should be an integral component of all education systems with pathways that enable movement and facilitate increase access. Work experience and volunteering should be mainstreamed in education delivery, and included in student assessment. This requires greater collaboration with industry, and with community bodies with which students have a relationship.
There is scope to connect education programmes with the Aid for Trade agenda, which now accounts for 25% of official development assistance (OECD, 2011). Policies aimed at improving labour productivity, such as education, training and labour market reforms, can also contribute significantly to trade expansion – and economic growth/poverty reduction – when combined with complementary policies for investment and infrastructure, and financial, institutional and regulatory reforms (Hallaert, Cavazos and Kang, 2011; OECD, 2011). The ability to attract Foreign
Page | 42
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Direct Investment is often dependent on the availability of a skilled labour force (OECD, 2011). Krueger (2011) notes that appropriate attention to education and training is vital both for success in international trade and for domestic economic activity. The new framework should take account of this emphasis on the extrinsic value of education by including specific targets for skills and TVET.
Education systems should open multiple pathways for achievement. Academic, professional, technical and vocational pathways all benefit the society including non-formal education. A choice of pathways should be available based on students’ different abilities and interests as well as the various needs of a diversified economy.
Post-basic and post-secondary education goal
Goal: Invest strategically in expanded and equitable access to post-basic and tertiary level education and training linked to wellbeing, livelihoods and employment and the transition to responsible adult citizenship
Indicators: Enrolments by grade at secondary level
Percentage of age group enrolled by Grade
Transition rates
Completion rates
All disaggregated by wealth quintile, location, gender, age and social group
8.2.4 Non-formal education and lifelong learning Education and learning need an holistic approach. This involves recognising the achievement of educational outcomes covering the spectrum from formal to non-formal learning. With high adult illiteracy and large numbers of people in agriculture or with pastoralist lifestyles and the urban informal sector, non-formal education and lifelong learning assume significant importance. Such education, particularly among women, is one of the determining factors for higher enrolment in education in the next generation. Flexibility in education, such as through part-time study, online and distance learning, workplace provision of learning, and flexible opening hours for educational institutions, should be encouraged. This applies to resources: in order to increase access and efficiency, educational institutions should be encouraged to open their facilities to as wide a community as possible.
Page | 43
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Adult literacy should remain a priority for global action, and its goals, indicators and targets should be made more specific. As Tawil (2012) notes, defining ‘functional literacy’ is problematic (and beyond the scope of this paper), but nonetheless vital.
Non-formal education and lifelong learning goal
Goals: Eliminate illiteracy and innumeracy amongst those under 50 years old
Provide education opportunities for young people and adults who have not successfully completed 9 years of basic education
Indicator: Literacy and numeracy rates at ages 15-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45 and 46-50 using samples and graded tests
Trained and qualified non-formal education facilitators
8.2.5 Participation Commonwealth concerns of democracy and human rights need to be reflected in new goals which seek to reduce gaps in equality of opportunity and ensure the option of meaningful education is open to all. If children are in school, but do not understand the language the teacher is speaking, or cannot see the chalkboard because of poor eyesight, or are bullied because of their gender or ethnicity, or are frequently absent as they care for relatives, or need to work to pay for items such as their school uniform, they are effectively excluded from the opportunities open to others in the same class. This means a renewed focus on ensuring relevant and appropriate education is offered to those who are currently at risk of exclusion, including: the poor; ethnic or linguistic minorities; refugees and asylum seekers; those with disabilities or special learning needs; children suffering from conflict trauma; those affected by health issues; and any other marginalised or disadvantaged community.
Education policy and planning to meet the goals should specifically prioritise reducing inequalities in education opportunities, and strategies for ensuring no person is left out of relevant, quality education. Specific targets for the inclusion of children with disadvantaged circumstances should be included in national education sector plans. Monitoring of this would need to capture implementation of equal opportunity strategies, as well as the existence of policies.
Page | 44
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Participation goal
Goal: Reduce and seek to eliminate disparities in participation in education at school level linked to wealth, location, special needs, age, gender and social group and ensure all children have equal educational opportunities and reduce gaps in measured outcomes
Indicator: Participation rates by Grades 1, 6, 9, and 12 by wealth quintile, location, gender, special needs, age and social group
Distribution of:
- pupil-teacher ratios and class size
- distance to school
- achievement levels
8.2.6 Infrastructure An expanded vision of access includes attention to all aspects of the learning environment. Lack of adequate hygiene can keep girls out of school; poor-designed layouts can create safety concerns; distance from home to school can keep children away or reduce the energy they have to commit to lessons; lack of water can cause hygiene concerns. A holistic view of education needs to consider teaching facilities, materials and the environment, so that an enabling environment for learning is created (UNICEF, 2009).
Infrastructure goal
Goal: Provide adequate infrastructure for learning according to national norms for buildings, basic services, safety, learning materials, and learning infrastructure within appropriate distances of households
Indicators: Percentage of schools meeting standards for: - sanitation - recreational facilities - clean water - furniture and equipment - building quality/learning space/safety - electricity - learning materials - access to relevant technologies - security
Page | 45
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
8.3 Cross-cutting themes There are several cross-cutting themes that should be mainstreamed in the development goals. For education, these themes should be mainstreamed in education curricula, and also addressed in sector planning, monitoring and reporting.
8.3.1 Education in emergencies Conflicts remain one of the main barriers to children attending school: enrolment rates for secondary school in conflict-affected countries are nearly one third less than in other low-income countries (UNESCO, 2011). ‘There are more fragile and conflict-affected countries than ever before, and none of these countries is on track to meet a single Millennium Development Goal’ (Kharas, 2011: para 2). Meteorologically induced natural disasters and related intra-state conflict are both expected to increase along with climate change (Nel and Righarts, 2008). Providing appropriate education in emergency situations has been shown to be effective in increasing children’s resilience and in contributing to peace-building and reconstruction (Nicolai and Triplehorn, 2003). Education in emergencies presents particular challenges, however, which necessitates particular attention in policy. Ensuring that ministries of education build disaster risk reduction and conflict-sensitivity into sector plans and education policies is critical in reducing the impact of natural hazards and in mitigating conflict and inequity (UNESCO-IIEP, 2011). Priorities for the new development framework for education should ensure that children and youth have access to quality education in all circumstances; education is appropriately funded and an essential part of humanitarian response; disaster risk reduction and conflict sensitivity are included in education sector plans.
Emergency preparedness should be integrated into education planning, and sufficient resources for education in emergencies should be made available. Integrating conflict and disaster risk reduction integrated into national education sector plans would achieve this. Monitoring would need to capture implementation of conflict and disaster risk reduction strategies, as well as the existence of policies.
Page | 46
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
8.3.2 Migration3 Globalisation has encouraged voluntary migration, especially economic migration (Gamlen, 2010). Studying overseas is now commonplace, while teachers are increasingly mobile internationally. This is especially true in the Commonwealth, where common language and values reduce barriers to migration. Recent reductions in the number of forced migrants have begun to be reversed, a trend which is expected to continue, as climate change and conflicts have increase the number of migrants (UNHCR, 2011). The effects of both voluntary and forced migration on both source and host country education systems can be profound, especially on small states, which find it difficult and expensive to replace teachers who leave to teach abroad. There needs to be national, regional and global policy agreement on managing these types of migration. Refugees and other national and international migrants are often not captured by national education management information systems (Ochs and Jackson, 2009), displaced populations being among the least visible (UNESCO, 2011).
Migrants – both forced and unforced – should be captured in the monitoring and evaluation of goals in the post-2015 development framework, and used to inform policy development. Conflict and disaster risk reduction integrated into national education sector plans
8.3.3 Gender While significant gains in gender parity in access have been made in many Commonwealth countries, achieving gender equality in learning outcomes is still distant in many countries. While in some cases teaching methodologies and institutional and socio-cultural environments disadvantage girls, in other cases they may disadvantage boys and under-achievement of boys is becoming an increasing challenge. A more nuanced understanding of the barriers to achieving gender equality needs to be included in the framing of the new goals. Moreover, success in improving gender equality in education has created expectations and a need to continue to provide and create opportunities for educating girls, boys, women and men, and take appropriate legal and political decisions to generate employment opportunities for all.
Gender dimensions should be explicitly addressed at all stages of design, implementation, monitoring and reporting. All reporting and evaluation of the development goals should be
3 The term ‘migrant’ here refers to both a “Person who changes his/her country of usual residence” and “A person undergoing a (semi-)permanent change of residence which involves a change of his/her social, economic and/or cultural environment”, within the terms detailed in the People on the Move Handbook of Selected Terms and Concepts (THP and UNESCO, 2008: 12-16).
Page | 47
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
disaggregated by sex and analysed through a gender lens.
8.3.4 Education for sustainable development Together with unsustainable resource use, man-made climate change presents an existential threat to citizens and societies. This raises the human security aspects of poverty and vulnerability’ Hyvarinen asserts the necessity of prioritising the needs of ‘poor and vulnerable countries in a world where advancing climate change is likely to pose an increasing threat to sustainable development and human security’ (2012: 1) because ‘the consequences of climate change are likely to have the greatest impact on the ability of the poorest and most vulnerable countries to achieve sustainable development’ (2012: 2).
Education has a key role to play in bringing about a shift towards more sustainable behaviours, as well as promoting effective mitigation and adaptation strategies (System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, 2012a). However, the focus on the content of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), rather than on the systemic changes needed to make education systems in their entirety carbon neutral and resource efficient, means that we are effectively using education to teacher future generations how to tackle environmental problems (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2012d). In keeping with Rio+20 commitments, environmental sustainability needs to be better represented in the framework.
There is a need for a fundamental paradigm shift: to go beyond ‘more and better’ education, to address education’s broader purpose in global and local development. Education systems and interventions should be assessed for their socio-economic and environmental implications, with a view to progressing towards producing school-leavers who have responsible and sustainable behaviour, and education systems which are exemplary of this in practice.
ESD ‘is an essential ingredient to ensure quality education and a successful transition to green societies and economies’ (UNESCO, 2012b: 12). Although the UN Decade for ESD has raised the profile of ESD, it has not achieved its mandate and its positioning outside of EFA/MDGs served to marginalise it (Cropper Foundation, 2011) – ESD principles should therefore be integrated in the new development framework. Education for sustainable development should be mainstreamed in all education policies, teacher preparation and curricula.
Sustainability should be integrated into every aspect of education management and delivery. As monitoring the multiple aspects of environmental sustainability is complex, a proxy
Page | 48
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
indicator – carbon emissions per student per year, might be an effective indicator. However, care will need to be taken than other environmental indicators, such as water use, waste production, resource use, are not side-lined.
Cross-cutting themes
Education in Emergencies: Conflict and disaster risk reduction integrated into all national education sector plans
Migration: All migrants of school-age or who are education professionals recorded in monitoring of education goals by the host country to inform policy formulation
Gender: All reporting and evaluation of the development goals disaggregated by sex and analysed through a gender lens
Education for Sustainable Development: Education for sustainable development mainstreamed in all education policies, teacher and school leader preparation, and curricula
Page | 49
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
9. Summary of goals, indicative indicators and targets
Principal goals Indicative Indicator Target 1. Every child completes a full cycle of a % of boys and girls who complete a minimum of 9 years of basic education, to the 100% of boys and girls minimum of 9 years of continuous, free appropriate national and, where appropriate, international, standard of within xx years basic education and demonstrates completion, by the age of 15 learning achievement consistent with national standards 2. Post-basic education expanded % of students of senior secondary/TVET/tertiary age (15-25) who complete an X% of boys and girls strategically to meet needs for accredited qualification within xx years, knowledge and skills related to depending on country employment and livelihoods starting point 3. Reduce and seek to eliminate % of children from the bottom 20% of household income achieving x% in national X% of boys and girls differences in educational outcomes learning assessments (NLAs) compared to those from the top 20% within xx years among learners associated with Comparative achievement of boys compared to girls in NLAs household wealth, gender, special Comparative achievement of those with special needs in NLAs needs, location, age and social group Comparative achievement of those in disadvantaged geographic locations in NLAs Comparative achievement of those from marginalised social groups in NLAs
Cross-cutting themes Education in Emergencies Conflict and disaster risk reduction integrated into all national education sector plans Migration All migrants of school-age or who are education professionals recorded in monitoring of education goals by the host country to inform policy formulation Gender All reporting and evaluation of the development goals disaggregated by sex and analysed through a gender lens Education for Sustainable Education for sustainable development mainstreamed in all education policies, teacher and school leader preparation, Development and curricula
Page | 50
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Subordinate goals Goal Indicative Indicator i. Early childhood Reduce and seek to eliminate early childhood under- Basic health and child development education and nutrition and avoidable childhood disease, and Body Mass Index, immunisation rates, childhood diseases development universalise access to community based ECE/D and pre- Participation rates in organised ECE/D and pre-school by age school below age 6 years ii. Basic education Universalise an ‘expanded vision of access’ to a full cycle Enrolment at Grades 1-12 of a minimum of 9 years of continuous basic education Completion rate by age at Grades 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 Successful achievement of national learning outcomes Trained and qualified teacher rate in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains for Trained and qualified school leader rate both primary and lower secondary cycles at age National Learning Assessment standards at Grade 3, 6, 9 and 12 appropriate levels up to the age of 15 years Yield (Level of achievement * % of age group achieving level) iii. Post-basic and Invest strategically in expanded and equitable access to Enrolments by grade at secondary level post-secondary post-basic and tertiary level education and training % of age group enrolled by Grade education linked to wellbeing, livelihoods and employment and Transition rates the transition to responsible adult citizenship Completion rates All disaggregated by wealth quintile, location, gender, age and social group iv. Non-formal Eliminate illiteracy and innumeracy amongst those Literacy and numeracy rates at ages 15-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45 and education and under 50 years old 46-50 using samples and graded tests lifelong learning Provide education opportunities for young people and Trained and qualified non-formal education facilitators adults who have not successfully completed 9 years of basic education v. Participation Reduce and seek to eliminate disparities in Participation rates by Grades 1, 6, 9, and 12 by wealth quintile, location, gender, participation in education at school level linked to special needs, age and social group wealth, location, special needs, age, gender and social Distribution of: group and ensure all children have equal educational - pupil-teacher ratios and class size - distance to school opportunities and reduce gaps in measured outcomes - achievement levels vi. Infrastructure Provide adequate infrastructure for learning according % of schools meeting standards for: to national norms for buildings, basic services, safety, - sanitation - furniture and equipment learning materials, and learning infrastructure within - learning materials - electricity appropriate distances of households - recreation facilities - clean water - security - access to relevant technologies - building quality/learning space/safety Page | 51
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
References Bulatao, RA; Ross, J. 2003. ‘Which health services reduce maternal mortality? Evidence from ratings of maternal health services’. In: Tropical Medicine and International Health 8(8), pp. 710-721. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-3156.2003.01083.x/full.
Burnett, N. 2012. ‘Will there be education goals after 2015? Education’s fragile position on the global agenda’. In: Commonwealth Education Partnerships 2012/13, pp. 25-26. Cambridge and London: Nexus Strategic Partnerships and Commonwealth Secretariat.
Burnett, N; Felsman, C. 2012. Post-2015 education MDGs. Washington: Results for Development Institute. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi- assets/publications-opinion-files/7776.pdf.
Campbell, OMR; Graham, WJ. 2006. ‘Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works’. In: The Lancet 368(9543), pp. 1284-1299. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673606693811.pdf?id=4d037fef cb72946c:cc129d8:13b508346d2:-75661354265682815.
Chang, R; Kaltani, L; Loayza, N. 2009. ‘Openness can be good for growth: The role of policy complementarities’. In: Journal of Development Economics 90(1), pp. 33-49.
Checchi, D; Salivi, A. 2010. Does Education represent a social protection for lifetime in sub-Saharan Africa? Paper prepared for the European Report of Development Conference “Promoting Resilience through Social Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Dakar, Senegal, 28-30 June. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://erd.eui.eu/media/BackgroundPapers/Checchi-Salvi- Does%20Education%20Represent.pdf.
Commonwealth Secretariat. 1991. Harare Commonwealth Declaration 1991. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=141095.
Commonwealth Secretariat. 2003. Making democracy work for pro-poor development: Report of the Commonwealth Expert Group on Development and Democracy. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://www.romankrznaric.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/Making%20Democracy%20Work%20For%20Pro- Poor%20Development%20October%202003.pdf.
Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012a. 18th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (18CCEM) Mauritius Communiqué. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 13 November 2012 from http://www.thecommonwealth.org/document/249627/18ccemcommunique.htm.
Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012b. 18CCEM Issues paper synopsis. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/249088/FileName/18CCEMIssuesPaperSynopsis.pdf.
Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012c. ‘Commonwealth facts’. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.commonwealththeme.org/media-room/commonwealth-facts/.
Page | 52
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
Commonwealth Secretariat. 2012d. Islands of inspiration: Education for sustainable development in small island developing states. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
CREATE. 2011. Making rights realities: Researching educational access, transitions and equity. Brighton: Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/Making-Rights-Realities- Keith-Lewin-September-2011.pdf.
Cropper Foundation. 2011. Assessing Progress and Developing Capacity in the Caribbean Region in the Context of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Regional Workshop. Cascadia Hotel, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 28 and 29 April. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://tcf-regional-workshop.weebly.com/.
Crossley, M; Bray, M; Packer, S. 2011. Education in small states: Policies and priorities. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Desai, S; Alva, S. 1998. ‘Maternal education and child health: Is there a strong causal relationship?’ In: Demography 35(1) pp. 71-81. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/230/art%253A10.2307%252F3004028.pdf?auth66=13 54437006_b8f6ff85ccac71d24f17a57286cf27e6&ext=.pdf.
ECOSOC. 2012. Summary of the briefing on the “Post 2015 UN Development Framework”. New York: ECOSOC. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/newfunct/pdf/post_2015_un_development_framework_summa ry.pdf.
Farrell, JP; Hartwell, A. 2008. Planning for successful alternative schooling: A possible route to Education for All. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP. Retrieved 30 July 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001598/159851e.pdf.
Fukuda-Parr, S. 2012. Should global goal setting continue, and how, in the post-2015 era? DESA Working Paper No 117, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2012/wp117_2012.pdf.
Gakidou, E; Cowling, K; Lozano, R; Murray, CJL. 2010. ‘Increased educational attainment and its effect on child mortality in 175 countries between 1970 and 2009: A systematic analysis’. In: The Lancet 376(9745), pp. 959-974. Retrieved 29 November 2012 from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61257-3/fulltext.
Gamlen, A. 2010. People on the move: Managing migration in today’s Commonwealth. First report of the Ramphal Commission on Migration and Development. London: The Ramphal Centre. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://ramphalinstitute.org/pdf/Ramphal_First_Report_Commission_Mig_and_Dev.pdf.
Green, D; Hale, S; Lockwood, M. 2012. How can a post-2015 agreement drive real change? The political economy of global commitments. Oxford: Oxfam. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/dp-politics-post-2015-mdgs-29102012- en.pdf/.
Hallaert, JJ; Cavazos, R; Kang, G. 2011. Estimating the constraints to developing countries trade –A taxonomy of the binding constraints to trade expansion of landlocked countries, small and
Page | 53
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
vulnerable economies, and commodity exporters. Study presented at the OECD Experts Workshop on “Aid for Trade Implementation”. Retrieved 20 November 2012 from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/28/47428944.pdf.
Hanushek, EA; Wößmann, L. 2007. Education quality and economic growth. Washington: World Bank. Retrieved 29 November 2012 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664- 1099079934475/Edu_Quality_Economic_Growth.pdf.
Hulme, D. 2007. The making of the Millennium Development Goals: human development meets results-based management in an imperfect world. Working Paper 16. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/Hulme07.pdf.
Hulme, D; Scott, J. 2010. The political economy of the MDGs: Retrospect and prospect for the world’s biggest promise. Manchester: University of Manchester Brooks World Poverty Institute. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/resources/Working- Papers/bwpi-wp-11010.pdf.
Hyvarinen, J. 2012. International institutions and new sustainable development goals beyond 2015: Climate change, poor and vulnerable countries. London: Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://www.field.org.uk/files/field_climate_post_rio__20_september_2012.pdf.
JICA. 2020. JICA’s operation in education sector: Present and future. Tokyo: Japan International Cooperation Agency. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/education/pdf/position_papaer.pdf.
Gansler, JS; Lipitz, RC. 2006. ‘Moving towards market-based government: The changing role of government as provider’. In: Kamensky, JM and A Morales (Eds.) Competition, choice and incentives in government programs. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kharas, H. 2011. New global partnership on development cooperation forged at Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness – Analysis. Retrieved 26 November 2012 from http://www.eurasiareview.com/23122011-new-global-partnership-on-development- cooperation-forged-at-busan-high-level-forum-on-aid-effectiveness-analysis/.
Kharas, H; Rogerson, A. 2012. Horizon 2025: Creative destruction in the aid industry. London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7723.pdf.
Krueger, AO. 2011. Aid for Trade. Keynote Address at the OECD Workshop on Aid for Trade Implementation. Retrieved 20 November 2012 from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/35/47460701.pdf.
Learning Metrics Task Team. ND. Learning Metrics Task Team: Terms of reference. Washington and Montreal: Centre for Universal Education at Brookings and UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved 22 November 2012 from
Page | 54
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Centers/universal%20education/learning%20metrics%20t ask%20force/LMTF_ToR_24092012.pdf.
Lewin, KM. 2012. Revisiting the Internationally Agreed Goals for education. Presentation given at the 18th Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers, Mauritius, 30 August. Retrieved 7 November 2012 from http://www.create- rpc.org/pdf_documents/CCEM18KeithLewinRevisitingtheIAGsSummary.pdf.
McKinley, T. 2009. Revisiting the dynamics of growth, inequality and poverty reduction. London: Centre for Development Policy and Research, School of Oriental and African Studies. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://www.soas.ac.uk/cdpr/publications/papers/file53130.pdf.
Melamed, C. 2012. Post-2015: The road ahead. London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi- assets/publications-opinion-files/7873.pdf.
Menefee, T; Bray, M. 2012. Education in the Commonwealth: Towards and beyond the Internationally Agreed Goals. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 7 November 2012 from http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/249091/FileName/EducationintheCommonwealth.pdf
Mitchell, L; Wylie, C; Carr, M. 2008. Outcomes of early childhood education: Literature review – Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/24456/885_Outcomes.pdf.
Nel, P; Righarts, M. 2008. ‘Natural disasters and the risk of violent civil conflict’. In International Studies Quarterly 52, 159–185. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www2.comm.niu.edu/faculty/rholt/eocg/LLRreadUnit2ANelRigharts.pdf.
Nicolai, S; Triplehorn, C. 2003. The role of education in protecting children in conflict. (Humanitarian Practice Network Paper No. 42). London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi- assets/publications-opinion-files/520.pdf.
NORAD. 2011. Education quality. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.norad.no/en/thematic-areas/education-and-research/right-to- education/education-quality.
Ochs, K; Jackson, PL. 2009. Review of the implementation of the Commonwealth Teacher Recruitment Protocol. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
OECD. 2011. Aid for trade at a glance 2011: Showing results. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 20 November 2012 from http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/aid4trade11_e.pdf.
Panos. 2011. Breaking barriers: Women in a man’s world. London: Panos. Retrieved 29 November 2012 from http://panos.org.uk/wp-content/files/2011/04/Breaking-Barriers-Women-in-a-Mans- World1.pdf.
Ravallion, M; Squire, L; Bruno, M. Equity and growth in developing countries: Old and new perspectives on the policy issues. Washington: World Bank. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from
Page | 55
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/docserver/download/1563.pdf?expires=1353515917&id=id&acc name=guest&checksum=976070BE7C7AB0F2104F69F7D8272B92.
Rogerson, A. 2012. Rethinking aid: The time is now. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/6929-rethinking-aid-sumner-kharas-cape-conference- 2012?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20121115.
Saito, M. 2003. ‘Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration’. In: Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, 17-33.
Sumner, A. 2012. ‘Where will the world’s poor live? Global poverty projections for 2020 and 2030’. In: IDS In Focus Policy Briefing 26. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/InFocus26-Final2.pdf.
Tawil, S. 2012. Beyond 2015: Perspectives for the future of education. Paris: UNESCO Education Research and Foresight. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/ERF_Discussion_Note_-_Beyond_2015.pdf.
Terzi, L. 2004. On education as a basic capability. Draft paper prepared for the 4th International Conference on the Capability Approach: Enhancing Human Security, 5-7 September 2004, University of Pavia, Italy. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://cfs.unipv.it/ca2004/papers/terzi.pdf.
THP Foundation; UNESCO. 2008. People on the move: Handbook of selected terms and concepts. The Hague and Paris: The Hague Process on Refugees and Migration (THP Foundation) and UNESCO. Retrieved 20 November 2-12 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001636/163621e.pdf.
UN. 2003. Population, education and development. New York: UN. Retrieved 7 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/concise2003/Concisereport2003.pdf.
UN. 2012a. The United Nations development strategy beyond 2015. New York: UN. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_publications/2012cdppolicynote.pdf
UN. 2012b. Education First: An Initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General. New York: UN. Retrieved 6 November 2012 from http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/files/EdFirst_G29383UNOPS_lr.pdf.
UN. 2012c. The Millennium Development Goals report 2012. New York: UN. Retrieved 6 November 2012 from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/The_MDG_Report_2012.pdf.
UNDP. ND. The future we want: A conversation with people on a post-2015 development framework. New York: UNDP. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.cbm.org/article/downloads/82788/UNDP_Consultation_process_list_of_countries. pdf.
UNECA. 2012. MDG Report 2012: Assessing progress in Africa toward the Millennium Development Goals – Emerging perspectives from Africa on the post-2015 development agenda. Retrieved 7
Page | 56
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
November 2012 from http://new.uneca.org/Portals/mdgreports/2012/MDGReport2012_ENG.pdf.
UNESCO. 2006. Framework for the UNDESD International Implementation Scheme. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001486/148650e.pdf.
UNESCO. 2011. The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190743e.pdf.
UNESCO. 2012a. Education for All: Beyond 2015. Mapping current international actions to define the post-2015 education and development agendas. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 November 2011 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002179/217935e.pdf.
UNESCO. 2012b. Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 report on the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, abridged. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002166/216606e.pdf.
UNESCO. 2012c. Youth and skills: Putting education to work. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 November 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002180/218003e.pdf.
UNESCO. 2012d. 2013 Education for All Global Monitoring Report: Teaching and learning for development. Retrieved 19 November 2012 from http://www.unesco.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_CBF2857AF589852D77FE0F06F666BE08FDE9 0000/filename/gmr2013-thematic-note.pdf.
UNESCO. ND. ‘The six goals of Education for All (EFA) have become UNESCO’s overriding priority in education’. Retrieved 25 July 2012 from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php- URL_ID=42579&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
UNESCO-IIEP. 2011. Integrating conflict and disaster risk reduction into education sector planning (draft). Paris: UNESCO-IIEP. Retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/News_And_Events/pdf/2011/IIEP_Guidancesn otes_EiE_en.pdf.
UNHCR. 2011. Global trends 2010. Geneva: UNHCR retrieved 14 November 2012 from http://www.unhcr.org/4dfa11499.html.
UNICEF. 2009. Child friendly schools manual. New York: UNICEF. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Child_Friendly_Schools_Manual_EN_040809.pdf.
UNICEF and UIS. 2012. Global initiative on out-of-school children. New York and Montreal: UNICEF and UIS. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/oosci_flyer.pdf.
Page | 57
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
UNIFEM. ND. Making change happen. New York: UNIFEM. Retrieved 29 November 2012 from http://www.unifem.org/attachments/products/MDGsAndGenderEquality_1_MakingChangeHap pen.pdf.
UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. 2012a. Education and skills for inclusive and sustainable development beyond 2015: Thematic think piece – UNESCO. New York: UN. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/4_education.pdf.
UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. 2012b. Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General. New York: UN. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/Realizing%20the%20future%20we%20want.pdf.
UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. 2012c. Review of the contributions of the MDG Agenda to foster development: Lessons for the post-2015 UN development agenda – Discussion Note. New York: UN. Retrieved 6 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg_assessment_Aug.pdf.
UN Women. 2011. Progress of the world’s women 2011-2012: In pursuit of justice. New York: UN Women. Retrieved 29 November 2012 from http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report- Progress.pdf.
Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 2012a. UCDP Non-State Conflict Dataset. Accessed 8 May 2012 from http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_non-state_conflict_dataset_/.
Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 2012b. UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset. Accessed 8 May 2012 from http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_prio_armed_conflict_dataset/.
Vandemoortele, J. 2012. Advancing the global development agenda post-2015: some practical suggestions. Bruges: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 7 November 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/desa_post2015paper_jv.p df.
Vandemoortele, J; Delamonica, E. 2002. ‘The “education vaccine” against HIV’. In: Current Issues in Comparative Education 3(1). Retrieved 30 November 2011 from http://www.tc.edu/CICE/Issues/03.01/31vandemoortele_delamonica.pdf.
Verspoor, AM. 2008. At the crossroads: Choices for secondary education in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington: World Bank. Retrieved 20 November 2012 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPEDUCATION/Resources/444659- 1210786813450/Secondary_Education_At_the_Crossroads.pdf.
World Bank. 2005. World development report 2006: Equity and development. Washington: World Bank. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2006/Resources/477383- 1127230817535/082136412X.pdf.
Page | 58
Commonwealth Ministerial Working Group on the Post-2015 Development Framework for Education
World Bank. 2012. Harmonized list of fragile situations FY12. Retrieved 8 November 2012 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLICUS/Resources/FCS_List_FY12_External_List.pdf.
Yamin, AE. 2012. Post MDGs: what next for a global development agenda that takes human rights seriously? Retrieved 15 November 2012 from http://www.unicef-irc.org/research-watch/Post- 2015--What-Next-/899/.
Appendix: Internationally Agreed Goals for Education A.1 Millennium Development Goals for Education MDG 2 Achieve universal primary education Ensure that by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.
MDG 3 Promote gender equality and empower women Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015.
A.2 Education for All Goals Goal 1 Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.
Goal 2 Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to, and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality.
Goal 3 Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills programmes.
Goal 4 Achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults.
Goal 5 Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good quality.
Goal 6 Improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognised and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.
Page | 59